The Law

I must begin by bringing to your attention a distinction in terms that denotes a radical difference between what I term "Law" (capitalization sic), and "law".  Capitalized "Law" denotes actual, proper, just, and validly applicable and enforceable specifications of human conduct, whereas "law" denotes "statute", which qualifies as "arbitrary law" as referenced later in this work.  As such, "law" represents something very different from "Law", the former being naught other than the whim and caprice of the Tyrant's will, the latter representing something far deeper and fundamentally immutable.   But let us not get ahead of ourselves.

We readily see that "law" is everywhere in this modern world, and yet I find that people have little to no understanding of what, exactly, it is beyond some vague notion that it must be obeyed no matter what.

Indeed, it has appeared to me that even most lawyers have no explicit knowledge of what Law actually is, or should be.  Rather, their knowledge rests mainly in procedure and precedent.  Knowing what purported "Laws" say and how to use them in the various forms of professional procedures is not the same as understanding the normative definition of the term, and it cannot be denied that as much as anything else, the practice of law (Law?) is all about definitions.

It is furthermore worthy to note that, so far as I have been able to discern, even the various law dictionaries miss the mark in how they define "law", a fact I find most disturbing, as should all men of sound mind and character.

For instance, the Oxford Dictionary of Law defines "law" as follows:

"law n. 

1. The enforceable body of rules that govern any society. See also COMMON LAW; NATURAL LAW. 

2. One of the rules making up the body of law, such as an Act of Parliament."


Note the absence of substantive meaning conveyed by this definition.  "Enforceable body of rules": enforceable by whom and by what non-arbitrary authority?  There is far more amiss with definitions such as this one, and we will address those inadequacies shortly.

Also notice that the definition fails to address the question of the circumstance where "law" becomes unenforceable.  Under such conditions, is law no longer law?  This is a gross and potentially dangerous oversight.

Meanwhile, and unfortunately, the definition of "common law" provides no help:

common law 

1. The part of English law based on rules developed by the royal courts during the first three centuries after the Norman Conquest (1066) as a system applicable to the whole country, as opposed to local customs.

2. Rules of law developed by the courts as opposed to those created by statute. 

3. A general system of law deriving exclusively from court decisions."

Note how these definitions, thus far, describe positive facts only, failing to give us a normative specification that includes the irreducible and principled basis for its construction and acceptance as valid and universally applicable.  A properly constructed normative definition of "law" is the only one that matters, for such a definition should in essence demonstrate the principle upon which law derives its just authority.  More on that later.

Black's Law Dictionary fails similarly:

"LAW. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens, subject to sanctions or legal consequences, is a "law." Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E"

Note again how it speaks to the positive rather than the normative.  As with the others, it shows no superiority to the arbitrary and makes no case as to why it must be obeyed, but only that it must be on pain of sanction.

Black's does, however, appear to  touch, however lightly, on a deeper character of law, but goes into no effort to elaborate:

"The earliest notion of law was not an enumeration of a principle, but a judgment in a particular case. When pro-nounced in the early ages, by a king, it was assumed to be the result of direct divine inspiration. Afterwards came the notion of a custom which a judgment affirms, or pun- ishes its breach. In the outset, however, the only authoritative statement of right and wrong is a judicial sentence rendered after the fact has occurred. It does not presuppose a law to have been violated, but is enacted for the first time by a higher form into the judge's mind at the moment of adjudication."

Sadly, my suspicion here is that "principle" is being misused such that the arbitrary will of a legislature is being wholly confused with non-arbitrary principle.  This, of course, is a catastrophic error, and yet it makes perfect sense that those in the "legal profession" would accept it because it serves the purposes of those in corrupted political power far more satisfyingly than would any adherence to actual and immutable principle that would better serve proper justice for all.  The former affords lawmakers and top-level employers of law (mostly governmental officials) a virtually limit-free prerogative to churn out whatever body of outrage-du-jour they might please, whereas the latter stands to tightly restrict and narrow their avenues of legislative, administrative, and enforcement caprice.

Continuing, law.com's law dictionary defines "law" as follows:

"law n.

1) any system of regulations to govern the conduct of the people of a community, society or nation, in response to the need for regularity, consistency and justice based upon collective human experience.

2) n. a statute, ordinance or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government and signed into law, or in some nations created by decree without any democratic process. This is distinguished from "natural law," which is not based on statute, but on alleged common understanding of what is right and proper (often based on moral and religious precepts as well as common understanding of fairness and justice). 3) n. a generic term for any body of regulations for conduct, including specialized rules (military law), moral conduct under various religions and for organizations, usually called "bylaws.""
Once again, the definition fails to satisfy the central valid purpose of law, which is to codify principled truths that apply to all men.  The opening words, "any system", are most troubling, implying that arbitrariness is not an issue with which one ought concern himself, save perhaps that it be employed to one's benefit at the possible detriment of all others.

Note the reference to "Natural Law", which at least hints at principled bases.

Thefreedictionary.com's law dictionary offers nothing substantively different:

"A body of rules of conduct of binding legal force and effect, prescribed, recognized, and enforced by controlling authority.

In U.S. law, the word law refers to any rule that if broken subjects a party to criminal punishment or civil liability. Laws in theUnited States are made by federal, state, and local legislatures, judges, the president, state governors, and administrative agencies."

As we see, this also suffers the selfsame deficiencies of arbitrary whim and caprice, all of which carry the implication of being unchallengeable such that all men are required to obey and comply with edict fully, and with smiles.

The only relief I have thus far found lies in the definitions of Bouvier's Law Dictionary of 1856 vintage:

"LAW. In its most general and comprehensive sense, law signifies a rule of action; and this term is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action; whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. 1 Bl. Com. 38. In its more confined sense, law denotes the rule, not of actions in general, but of human action or conduct.

2. Law is generally divided into four principle classes, namely; Natural law, the law of nations, public law, and private or civil law. When considered in relation to its origin, it is statute law or common law. When examined as to its different systems it is divided into civil law, common law, canon law. When applied to objects, it is civil, criminal, or penal. It is also divided into natural law and positive law. Into written law, lex scripta; and unwritten law, lex non scripta. Into law merchant, martial law, municipal law, and foreign law. When considered as to their duration, laws are immutable and arbitrary or positive; when as their effect, they are prospective and retrospective. These will be separately considered."

At least Bouvier's honestly and competently recognizes that "law" as practiced is every bit as likely to be arbitrary and irrational as it is to be otherwise.

Bouvier's goes on:

"LAW, ARBITRARY. An arbitrary law is one made by the legislator simply because he wills it, and is not founded in the nature of things; such law, for example, as the tariff law, which may be high or low. This term is used in opposition to immutable."

Note the reference to immutability.  Anything called "law" should be founded upon immutable principle as definable by a thing's underlying nature , otherwise it is not law.  Natural Law bears this quality, which is perhaps a main reason it is discredited by the corrupt and ignorant who peddle unpublished agendas to the unwitting, who would otherwise be the unwilling.

Why do we refer to the "law of gravity", or the "laws of physics"?  We do so because they are, for all practical purposes, immutable.  There is no changing or eliminating gravity or the fundamental characteristics of matter, energy, and how they behave.  We must perforce deal with these aspects of reality on their terms, and not our own.  While there may be many ways to coax matter and energy to do things in what seems to us an artificial manner, we are nonetheless operating upon them by their rules, and not our own.  Until such time as human science reveals to us an equal or superior principle to the principles by which matter, energy, and gravity operate, they remain effectively immutable in the sense that we shall have to continue having to "obey" them.  Discovery of a new mechanism by which we may one day "defy" gravity does not render the other Laws invalid or even non-immutable, but only alters our understanding of the immutability in question.

So it must be with "law", and here I shall distinguish what we shall come to know as "real law" v. "false law" (see Arbitrary Law, above) by capitalizing the noun.  Therefore, "Law" shall mean proper, actual, principled and provably provable law; law as nearly no man currently understands it, and the legal institutions of the world would have it never be understood.

Before proceeding, it perhaps serves us well to look at one more law definition, once again from Bouvier's:

"LAW, CANON. The canon law is a body of Roman ecclesiastical law, relative to such matters as that church either has or pretends to have the proper jurisdiction over:

2. This is compiled from the opinions of the ancient Latin fathers, the decrees of general councils, and the decretal epistles and bulls of the holy see."

It is of value to note the reference to pretense here.  It is further noteworthy that the reference to pretense is not quite so explicitly applied to other governing bodies such as those of nation-states as exampled by America, Great Britain, and so forth.  The definition of "Arbitrary Law" only speaks to the object of the definition, offering no real world examples or cites for which law dictionaries appear to be otherwise so painfully generous.

What, Then, Is Law?

If the law dictionaries are getting it wrong, and I insist that they are, what then would a proper definition of "law" look like?  That is to say, how does one properly define "Law"?

For starters, let us list what law is not: Law cannot be arbitrary.  Arbitrary law is mere statute, decree, fiat, ordinance, whim, etc., which in turn is nothing more authoritative than the capricious will of one man over that of another, thereby dictating that some behavior shall now be required of people, or prohibited to them.  Mere statute has no demonstrable validity, and therefore no force of Law.  Unfortunately, it almost universally does have the force of armed men who appear to hold precious small compunction to enforce such caprice upon the people to whose rights they have, at least in America, sworn an oath of fealty, good and faithful service, and protection.  There is great irony in this; a sad and dangerous irony that destroys all that is good between men.

If law is to be Law, it must be non-arbitrary, which further implies that it must be based in valid principle, which in its own turn must derive from the most basic nature of things.  Otherwise, it is by definition arbitrary and, therefore not Law.

There is, by the way, an analog to this, however loose it may be.  A "contract", in order to exist, must meet six criteria, each or which may be validly seen as a principle of sorts, or at least an analog to principle in the sense that they are clearly defined.  To wit, a contract must have the following elements present:

1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Capacity
4. Intent
5. Consideration
6. Lawfulness

The first two simply say that someone must be making some sort of an offer to another and that the other must accept it in the absence of coercion.

"Capacity" refers to one's mental and physical capacities to responsibly and capably enter into the agreement and discharge the duties and obligations, as well as reap the benefits, set forth and embodied therein.

"Intent" refers to the non-coerced intention of all parties to enter into the relations that the contract stands to establish between them by mutual consent.

"Consideration" is comprised of the list of those things to be exchanged between the parties as the substantive benefits and obligations of the agreement.  It is worthwhile to note that all parties must receive consideration and that, generally speaking, the mutual considerations must be deemed as at least roughly equivalent.  An agreement where only one party receives consideration cannot be a contract, but is naught more than a mere and lop-sided obligation of one man in servitude to another.  

"Lawfulness" means that the considerations of the agreement must accord with Law.  For example, I may not contract with another man to have my neighbor murdered.  That would be unLawful.

The point here is that "contract" has a more or less rigorous definition that is narrow and clear; certainly far more so than the various definitions of "law" as are so commonly employed.  Furthermore, it is declarative in voice, saying "this is what must be."  It is a specification for a structure such that all candidates for contract status are, at least in theory, readily judged for validity.  In practice, of course, there are those rare cases where the elements are of such a nature that unusual and often thorny questions arise, requiring the attention of particularly adept experts in the practice of contract law.  It may be fact that these sorts of outlier cases cannot be entirely avoided.  We can, however, apply our good wits pursuant to contriving a definition that greatly narrows the possibilities for injustices, accidental or otherwise.

By this definition, any agreement that fails to carry all six of these elements within its structure is decidedly not a contract, but rather something else.

And so it must be with Law.  "Law" must specify the super-normative requirements of its own constitution.  Law must be defined in such a way that any man of marginal intellect may look at it and be able to determine whether something put before him as Law is, in fact, Law.  This is the key characteristic and requirement that is so conveniently missing in all of the definitions I have seen to date, and apparently has been since the first days of man's law, with perhaps a small few exceptions.

One of those exceptions may be English Common Law.  However, I have become familiar with several potentially and mutually exclusive views on Common Law.  The definition as given above makes no mention of such immutable principles, and yet in other places, I have read about such.  My understanding, such as it may be, is that under Common Law there are three basic principles to which all men must comport themselves in good accord.  To wit:

1. Be good for your word
2. Do no unjust harm
3. Make whole those whom you damage without just and rightful cause or authority

My understanding of this is that these are the principles upon which all Common Law is based and that the remainder is nothing other than the case law of practical application.  I suspect there is likely more to it that just this, certainly today with the British Pariliament churning out statute in the manner of Otto von Bismarck's fabled sausages, where he is quoted as having said, "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made."  The quote is often misattributed to Mark Twain.

Other than this somewhat questionable example, I can think of no other body of national law that founds upon immutable principle insofar as the specification of what constitutes actual Law.  I reiterate my opinion that this is not the case as the result of the mere happenstance of unfortunate oversight by those entrusted to define, create, and enact "law".  Very much the opposite: men are well proven to covet political power over their fellows.  A loosey-goosey definition of "law" offers such men the widest possible latitude to churn out and enact their arbitrary impulses, which serves the interest of their lusts far more faithfully than a definition that any man would be able to apply in determination of whether that which has been declared is in fact valid and in possession of the force of principle.

This brings us to the heart of the matter: a set of specifications that, taken as a whole, defines the qualities and characteristics of Law in terms that are both clear, correct, and complete.  Anything less than this must be rejected by all good men of sound mind and character and who treasure that which is right above the wrong, and who treasure their rights, and the freedoms born into them, as well as the justice that derives from the proper relations between them.

Law, n.

a rule of action applicable to all men to compel or prohibit behavior, constructed in accord with the following specifications and caveats:

1. It must never diminish, restrict, limit, disparage, or otherwise violate the fundamental rights of men in any manner or degree whatsoever, regardless of purport of necessity, or claim to authority
2. If addressing a crime, there must be a provably valid specification of the victim's constitution given as justification and basis for the rule
3. it must be based upon at least one immutable and provenly valid principle of proper human relations
4. It must be linguistically constructed so as not be subject to variations in interpretation.  What it meant yesterday, it means today and shall mean tomorrow in perpetuity.
5. A Law must be demonstrably clear in its semantics
6. A Law must be provably precise in its semantics
7. A Law must be provably correct against the standards of the principles of proper human relations
8. A Law must be complete as to applicability

Caveat of nonseverability: absence of any of these requirements renders the rule as mere and invalid statute, and is thereby devoid of any force of Law. Any attempt at the enactment of such an invalid corpus is by this definition false, invalid, non-authoritative, and by those virtues may any man ignore the dictates and prohibitions with no obligation to submit to any act of enforcement pursuant thereto. Any such reprisals may be met with force sufficient to remove the threat, up to and including deadly force in the cases where the threats presented are of such a nature and degree that their results may include bodily injury, death, or immediate loss of physical freedom through any or several avenues including but not limited to physical apprehension and subsequent kidnapping by anyone purporting to enforce such non-Law.

Caveat of applicability: Law applies only to the degree to, and the manner in which, it is complete and sufficiently specific to its stated purpose and the principles it defends.

Note how this architecture for Law provides at least the beginnings of a framework for objective criteria for its construction and proofing.  As with contracts, it makes explicit the requirement of all elements in order for a Law to in fact exist and that absence of any single required component renders the rule as statute and therefore, non-Law, void of any force or effect.  It further explicitly recognizes  a man's fundamental and inborn right as a Freeman to defend himself against enforcement of such invalid statutory declarations by whatever means necessary, up to and including killing those attempting to impose them upon him.

Example of a valid Law

Here, I contrive a hypothetical Law against murder.  Note how immediately and intuitively evident such a law tends to be, precisely because they find their deepest roots in accord with our most basic humanity, as well as with reason and logic.

Prohibition against Murder

Any man taking from another his life without just cause shall be guilty of the crime of murder.  Just cause for the taking of life includes:

1. Defense of property against trespass or other unjust violation
2. As a matter of documented contract between taker and he from whom life is taken
3. Under circumstances of dire emergency where injury, the resulting suffering, and no reasonable prospect for recovery render killing of injured parties as a gift of mercy in the face of unbearable agony and, likely, inevitable death.

Basis:  All Men are equally endowed with Life.  Born into each Man is the inner drive to preserve and perpetuate his Life, which constitutes the materially observable manifestation of each Man's innate Claim to Life, also known as his Right to Life and may be referred to as his First Property.

A Man's life is, therefore, his unalienable First Property in all contexts where his actions pose no immediate existential threat, or an immediate threat of great destruction or other harm to the Life or other Property of another because, beyond such circumstances, no Man may take from another or destroy that which is demonstrably the rightful Property of the other.  

Contrary to what any other principle or aspect of Law may otherwise assert, a Man's immediate inability to defend his Claim to Life renders no nullity upon said Claim.

Murder is a crime with a perpetrator and one or more victims.  The perpetrator is he who takes life without the just causes as have been herein defined.  A Victim is one whose life has been taken from him by a perpetrator.

For the purposes of this Law, the following definitions shall apply:

1. Property
2. Claim
3. Right
4. Crime
5. ...

This, of course, is a good representative case of a Law Mala In Sé.  Let us now test to see whether this specification rises to the standard of Law.

1. It is explicit in its protections of all Rights of Men
2. Addresses a crime, and defines both perpetrator and victim
3. The valid Principles of Proper Human Relations are cited, though in practice would have to be referenced more explicitly and explanations given as to how and why the Law in question defends the principles so cited.
4. The semantic structure is clear, with explicit definitions of terms provided
5. The Law is without any ambiguity that I can readily detect, given the eventual and proper fleshing out of all the specifications.
6. While not proven, it appears at first blush to be on good track toward meeting the standard
7. It would seem likely to pass the
8. 
   
9.  smell test.

While I have failed to put this specification through the complete program of rigor for the sake of the mercy of brevity to you, the reader, I am confident that it either meets the standard, or would so meet it with only minor modification.

Example of Invalid Specification Resulting in Non-Law

Prohibition against possession, use, and sale of Cannabis Sativa

Anyone found to be in possession of cannabis sativa shall be guilty of a capital crime and shall be sentenced to death.

Clearly this specification fails to rise to the standard of Law.  It is a clear case of a law mala prohibita, which is by that virtue not Law.  That potential argument aside, let us go through the list:

1. It fails to establish a non-arbitrary basis for the prohibition
2. It fails to establish a crime, much less a valid victim
3. There is no principle, valid or otherwise, to which any reference direct or oblique in evidence
4. Semantics are clear enough
5. The specification is ambiguous as it fails to make explicit the meaning of "possession"
6. Not apparently valid
7. Appears valid on this point,

Furthermore, it fails to meet the standard of the Caveat of Applicability as it is far too broadly expressed.

This example is, of course, one of a glaring nature, chosen for the purpose of providing a clear representation of non-Law.  In reality, non-Law is at times likely to be far more subtle in its failings, which is all the more the reason for having a rigorous definition of "Law" that includes such a checklist by which candidate bills could be readily judged as to whether they meet the standard.

There are, sadly, many cases where the nature of a "law's" failings are too subtle for far too many jurists to detect, much less ID and properly qualify.  What chance, then, has the average layman with no training in Law?  And of course we have the added aggravating factor of corrupted legislators, jurists, and other beneficiaries of a given statute who have no desire to expose it as invalid.  Given these realities, is it any wonder that American jurisprudence is in the deplorable state in which we find it, serving more to wreak havoc, misery, death, and destruction upon the lives of men, than to edify, protect, and preserve them.

Conclusion

This general specification for Law as presented here is likely not complete by some nontrivial proportion                                                                             ; but if so,  I believe it is reasonably close in the broader strokes.  

It is, in any event, a good and necessary start not only toward bringing men finally into the possession of a proper definition and specification standard for Law, but also as an instrument of generating awareness of the need for such an objective standard. 

Such a standard promises to meet with vigorous opposition from the circles of political power, for it would bind the hands of legislators in ways they are certain to find greatly objectionable.  It might meet similar, if less violent opposition from other quarters, practitioners of Law (or law) included.

False-law has become one of the most pervasive and dangerous scams in existence.  It purports to protect the freedoms of men, while in point of fact it does more to deny and demolish the rights of men than any other nameable factor in our lives.

Take it in and let it roll around in the back of your thoughts awhile.  The propriety of this idea should resonate with all freedom-minded men.  Imagine a nation where legislators were greatly or even wholly limited in their powers to step on the rights of those whose rights they swore to uphold and protect.  That is the potential of this idea.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

American Graffiti And The Destruction Of American Culture

Greetings and Felicitations once again!

Non-Americans used to often say that America had no culture.  That, of course, was a weak and ham-fisted attempt at insult, most often but not exclusively offered by Europeans.  While the intended insult was false, there was a thread in it that reached outward to a different, but closely related truth that can be readily made apparent with the question, "what is the nature of American culture?"

It is that question to which I now turn my eyes.

Last night I watched "American Graffiti".  It is one of my favorites.  However, there is a disturbing filament that runs through the entire film: it is the apparent infantilization of American youth that, so far as I can tell, began in earnest with the end of World War II.

I cannot claim to be a nit-level expert on the every-day culture of the American teen during that part of the twentieth century which preceded the second world war, but I do have a basic sense that it was in some ways notably different from that which rapidly arose in post-war America.  However, it does seem that the same forces that drove the post-war metamorphosis were at work pre-war, if in a notably attenuated fashion.  Before the war, the idolization of film stars and musical personalities had surely begun taking root, but the degree to which it had altered American thought seems to me to have been notably less than that after the war.

Once again before continuing, I must emphasize that some of what I put down here are my impressions, offered as food for thought, since I was born at the latter end of the period in question.  Anyone with superior knowledge of the specifics is most welcome to correct me in any detail or sweeping trend.

When the war came to an end, Americans breathed a huge sigh of relief and, it seems, became charged with a great vigor and enthusiasm for what they believed to be free living; that is, the life of free men.  And who wouldn't?  After four long years of relative deprivation, some fear of foreign aggression, and burying loved ones killed on alien soils, it was time to appreciate the beauty of life as an American.  We had avoided nearly all potential material damages to our own land, something for which the American people were undoubtedly very grateful.  It was time to love and live life with an intensity and joy only those who had felt the near sweep of disaster could, and we did.

The abandon with which we threw ourselves back into living was evident all around us, but perhaps no other indicator made as clear the degree to which this was the case as that of the American automobile.  This was one of the central structural devices employed in American Graffiti, as it focused largely on that cultural element that is so uniquely American: cruising.  We see hot rods and all manner of other vehicles down to the lowly VW Bug on the boulevards, making the circuits all night long into the wee hours of the morning.

What got me to thinking in a remembering sort of way is a scene where one of the protagonist characters, Steve, played by Ron Howard, and his girlfriend, find themselves at a sock hop at the school from which he had recently graduated only 8 weeks prior.  By means never made known in the film, the spotlights come on to them, cuing them that they are to dance for the rest in a manner similar to a homecoming event or the prom queen and king.  That is when my memory was touched off and the remembrance of my long-held opinions of high school culture came rushing back to me.  It was the utter infantility of this brand of social construct that struck me like an iron bar right in the kisser.

Here we had young adults, otherwise fairly well educated - very well by today's sorrowfully low standards - willingly participating in this wholly childish nonsense of faux and contrived social hierarchy.  Homecoming and queen/king.  The "football hero" who gets to screw all the cheerleaders. The apex predator jocks and said cheerleaders and the adoration they tend to receive, not to mention special treatments.

Aside from the cults of localized personality, there are the various external factors to which teens have been trained to focus their energies and devotion.  Bands are prime examples of this.  To wit, those that drive the young girls into emotional frenzies like the Beatles back in 1964.  The boys, taking a somewhat different timbre, are no less prone to their equivalent distractions.

Then there are the sports, football being perhaps the grand icon.  But there are all manner of others. Soccer has seen a precipitous rise.  Sk8ting, snowboarding, mountain biking and BMX, as well as a whole host of others.  Mind you, there is nothing wrong with these activities in themselves, but when they become all consuming and garner regard so serious as even life and death in some cases, something is amiss.

We could go on and on with the seemingly endless array of deeply distracting facets of teen life.  Let me not neglect to mention sex, while I'm at it.  Sure, it was always there, but today we have very young women and even girls now engaging in sexual congress, having assumed the protections of the pill and so on; the result has been the demotion of the significance of the sex act for many to nothing more than just another sport.  Note also the trend toward the removal of all pubic hair from both male and female; yet another subtle psychological factor that keeps the mind in the frameset of childhood.  Adults have pubic hair, children do not.

The crucial element at play here is not so much the distractions in themselves, but the fact that they are distractions.  "Distraction" implies something away from which attention is being directed.  That is the key issue.

Here I will state a central thesis, and before assessing me fit for the funny farm (say that three times fast), bear with me a bit.  The people of America, through its youth, have been attacked in a coordinated, concerted manner.  Of this there can be no question.  The only question that remains to be answered (and I doubt I have those answers with any definiteness) revolves around the nature of the conspiracies.

The possibilities include, but are not limited to, a true political conspiracy designed with definite purpose to weaken and effectively destroy American posterity for any of several possible and historically common reasons, a happenstance conspiracy of commercial greed intended to set the minds of people in a direction profitable to any of a very large set of business interests, or perhaps a combination of the two.  I cannot readily come up with others at the moment, but I am sure they must be out there.  However, these are the most significant, as well as the most likely, candidates, to my thinking.

Let us address the two unique possibilities in turn, beginning with the apparently less sinister.  I say "apparently" because intentions count for little in such matters, whereas outcomes count for everything.  In each case, the outcomes have been identical.

Commercial Gain

The case for commercial gain is strong and in my opinion undeniable.  We have seventy two years of history since the end of the war that attests to the wildly vigorous activity of "Madison Avenue".  Since those days, advertisers have thrown everything including the kitchen sink into their mix of tricks aimed at getting people to buy their wares, no matter how ridiculously useless or even dangerous they might prove.  The psychology applied has most often been to focus the thoughts upon the products as things so unbearably worthy of desire that the individual becomes nearly non-functioning until such time as the lust is sated with a purchase.

Consider how such things were done in the world of entertainment with teens being specifically targeted;  the idol-worship of singing stars that made girls swoon, or worse.  How about the great sports "heroes" over whom the boys might get into fisticuffs, arguing who is closer to the ideal, and which hero is best?  The list is endless and this sort of thing continues to this very day as teens are targeted very specifically for legions of products from foods to pimple medications, phones, cars, clothing, sports equipment, and so on down the line.

The point is that these mere things have been so successfully interjected into the consciousnesses of our youth that they distract them from the basic life skills that stand to lead them to become powerful adults. Whether that is intentional remains unclear.

But what is a "powerful adult"?  A simple question with not so simple answers.  I will, however, go broad-brush by saying that an adult is powerful when they are in full possession of themselves.  They think, act, choose, and feel for themselves, by their own authorship.  As the opinions and baiting of others takes greater and greater portions of one's individual autonomy away, he becomes increasingly less powerful.  The power to command oneself is the greatest power in the universe of humanity.

However, once acquired, such power is very difficult to steal away, if not impossible.  But denying the young the opportunity to become powerful in the first place... that is a horse much more easily broken to the saddle.  Ultimately speaking, adults of low power are far more readily controlled than those of a fuller measure.

Concerted Political Conspiracy

This possibility is much more difficult to sell to a large audience, yet I maintain that such things do indeed exist even today.  History is rotten with such conspiracies.  In the twentieth century alone we see clear evidence of endless conspiring to political ends.  The Turk's murdered at least two million Armenians in a conspiracy of "ethnic cleansing".  The same occurred in the 1990s in the various Balkan states.  Of these, there is no controversy.

In Russia, a great political conspiracy lead to the communist revolution and devolution of the so-called "soviet" people wherein perhaps as many as 100 million people were brutally slaughtered by their own government.  China with its "cultural revolution" butchered at least as many as did the Soviets, possibly more.  In Cambodia the Khmer Rouge followed hideous suit with their blindly stupid and inconceivably evil program to reduce every human being within their borders to clone-like sameness, all ostensibly in the name of their psychotic and pathologically demented notion of "equality".

Hitler gets his honorable mention as he brought the European continent into further conflagration, not without the help of the Polish and British governments, each of whom were conspiring to bring to loggerheads Germany with the rest of Europe.  To their credit, the French apparently refused the Polish entreaties to start something with Germany.  They'd had quite the bellyful of war.

Idi Amin, the Hutus and Tutsis, as well as a whole raft of other conspirators have been exposed, including the 9/11 hijackers, whoever they may really have been, and others.

The world is crawling with conspiracies of deep and dark political blood.  Those who attempt to deride those who recognize this by dismissively labeling them "conspiracy theorists" are largely foolishly closed of eye, apparently content to regard the world as some sort of fussy-wuzzy place that has evolved out of such barbarity, and into a place of bunnies and light.  This, of course, is a sad and very dangerous nonsense, but let me not digress too fully into discussions for another day.

The incontrovertible truth is that people conspire.  They do it all the time in countless places and ways, but always with the same fundamental goal of gaining some form of advantage for themselves.

That all said, we can turn our eyes to the so-called "globalist" or "internationalist".  Unlike in years past, since about 9/11/2001, the people of that political bent have been coming out of the closet, so to speak.  They no longer hide in shadows, but are content to declare themselves rather openly to the world.  They fully admit their desire, if not outright objective of one day seeing this earth of ours reigned over by a single-point governing body.  World dominion has, for many, become respectable in place of its prior reputation as the ultimate political evil.

The intentions and designs of the globalist/internationalist are fairly clear, at least in the broad and somewhat unrevealing strokes.  Proof of this is readily obtainable from the UN Agenda 21 Document, innocuously titled, "United Nations Conference on Environment & Development" under the auspices of the equally innocent sounding "United Nations Sustainable Development".  Therein one may find an eerie truth regarding the internationalist's mindset regarding his view of what I would call "lesser humanity".  And make no mistake about this point: the internationalist is fast to divide the race of humans into such categories.  Naturally, he is never himself to be considered as a member of the lesser set of his fellows.  No sir.  Somehow, he always manages to find himself in the subset whose blood line is not to be consumed in the flames of "population policy".

Just as an example of the truth of my assertions, subsection 5.3 begins by stating:

"The growth of world population and production combined with unsustainable consumption patterns places increasingly severe stress on the life-supporting capacities of our planet."

Taken uncritically, one might cheer for this statement.  After all, is it not a given that we are living beyond our means?  Well, isn't it?

The moment one begins to allow his proper habits of analytic thought to kick into gear, one's assessment of such a statement immediately comes to halts as the questions begin to assert themselves.  What is to be questioned, you ask?  Everything.  Every word.  Every sub-phrase, phrase, and then the gestalt of the sentence itself.

If we engage in such basic analytical activity, we come to the conclusion that the sentence in question is long on innuendo and very short on specifics, including facts.  For example, how do we know that our consumption is "unsustainable"?  What does "unsustainable" mean, specifically?  In what ways and for how long can we keep consuming "unsustainably"?  You will find the answers nowhere in the document in question.  Nowhere do we find any hard science on the "severe stress" claimed to be impinging upon the "life-supporting capacities of our planet".  And who says that the planet is ours?  As we can see, the tacit assumptions on which this one measly sentence rides are deep, several, and largely unquestioned by most people.

The section later states:

"Population policy should also recognize the role played by human beings in environmental and development concerns."

This sentence, when examined even in the most cursory manner, is perhaps even more disturbing.  What, exactly, is "population policy"?  Who makes it?  By what authority to do they presumably make it for all men?  What the standard of judgment?  By what authority is that the standard?  We could go on virtually endlessly with these sorts of questions.  Why?  Because none of them have satisfactory answers, which is to say non-arbitrary ones.

The implications of these two mere sentences are potentially vast.  Now consider that there are hundreds of pages of this nonsense, all of it speaking to the same few basic points that centrally include the one that says there are too many people on the planet and that we need to reduce the numbers.

Now ask yourself, "how?"  How are we to reduce our numbers?  More pointedly, how much are we to reduce them?  More pointedly still: in what time frame do we need to make this reduction?  This all leads to the endless squirm-inspiring query: "by what specific means shall we affect these reductions and upon whom shall they be visited?"

Once again, we must delve deeply into that question and its likely implications, though we will not do so here.  Suffice to say that the most likely scenario stands as some form of artificial cull of the population of men, worldwide.  What else could there be?  It took us so many thousands of years for our numbers to expand to their current levels.  It has been at least 150 years since the abrupt rise of human technologies made for the conditions that allowed for the equally abrupt rise in population.  Do we think that those numbers will simply come down as matters of will in but a few short years?

The opinions of the globalists is made clear that they believe we are "teetering" on the brink of destruction.  That almost certainly means that they believe we do not have another 150 years to bring down our numbers.  If they do, they are not saying it.  The question of time-frame seems to evade them rather conveniently, I might add, since I have yet to see anyone in a position of real power make any numerically definite statements regarding how long we have to save ourselves.

This leaves us looking at some potentially very unattractive possibilities.

Now, not to deny you the punchline, which I do not possess, we come to the reason for this apparent digression: the internationalist firmly believes in the absolute necessity of a one-world government.  They want the elimination of all sovereignty on the planet, whether it be states or individuals.  They make no bones about this today and are now very open on the matter.

What does this mean for America and how does it tie into the infantilization of its people?  Verily so: America is the only statistically significant national population that retains anything greater than the least shreds of their inborn freedom.  Our Bill of Rights (BoR) has thus far preserved us from total subjugation by those who deem themselves entitled to lord over us.

The rest of the world has been conquered.  Europe has had the tyrant's boot on its neck for so long that they are comfortable in their chains and have been trained to mostly willingness in compliance with the whims of their oppressors.  To an even greater degree, the same may be said for Asia and much of South America.  Africa remains a train wreck.  Canada is little more than a European political clone and Mexico has been a land of raving, raging political corruption since its first days.

That leaves America and Australia.  The people of Oz went for the internationalist bait of promising safety in exchange for arms.  Today, many Ozzies rue their flawed decision as their population remains disarmed almost in toto, rendering them helpless against any armed governing force, save to do as they are told.  Scratch them from the list of obstacles barring the way to One-World bliss.

That leaves America as the sole remaining impediment to global dominion.  And when I wrote "global dominion", it is not with visions of Dr. Evil in mind, laughing maniacally as he revels in his dastardly plans to bring the world to his heel.  Rather, we speak of men whose intentions may actually be at least ostensibly noble.  But as we should all know by now, intentions count for nothing in such matters, but only the results.

How does one defeat an impediment as mighty as the American?  Turn him away from his traditional strength and reduce him to... an effective infant!

There are other avenues to conquest, but this is clearly the best: to turn your potential foe against himself such that not only is he reduced to an impossibly low status, his condition is such that he becomes at worst an impotent opponent, but preferably a willing accomplice to your designs.

It seems to me that this is what has been foisted upon the people of America with great cunning, patience, and fortitude.  Looking at younger people today, the average man is weak and childish, those qualities being the readily predictable results of the ever intensifying effects of what I am sufficiently comfortable in labeling the "progressive agenda".

Thank heaven there are still millions of households, mostly in the rural areas, that have resisted the stupefying effects of contemporary American culture upon their issue.  Unfortunately, that still leaves a very large proportion of our people who have been purposely retarded in their thinking to the point they are not only incapable of critically assessing their circumstances, they have no interest.

I would note that there is actually very little needed in the way of positive action to cause such circumstances to come to realization.  A few key changes in the structure of the schools and an very long leash on the various commercial interests and nature will turn the ship of its own accord, bringing me to the third candidate theory: a hybrid of concerted political intent and the natural action of commercial ambition.  Entropy is loosed upon the people and the results are almost perfectly predictable.  It doesn't take much, which is why so many refuse to believe what is so clearly before them.

The take-away in all this?  I can think of nothing offhand other than the value of awareness.  That is the first step.  Become aware of what is going on around you and then decide whether that is what you want in your life and those of your children and the other people for whom you care.  After that, start thinking on what you might do to resist these effects, if resistance is what you choose.

Otherwise, crack a beer, get some popcorn, and return your attention to the television.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

What Are Rights?

I just realized that in the few years I have been posting here on the various aspects of freedom, I have never specifically addressed the issue of rights in any direct depth.  Oddly, I thought I'd done so in my very first essay, "What Is Freedom?", but as it turns out, I had not done so sufficiently.  While there isn't all that much in terms of fundamentals to the notion of rights, it still serves us well to have a proper understanding of what they are.

The correct understanding of rights is sorely absent from the repertoire of most people's educations.  This is not only shameful, but very dangerous.  I will, therefore, endeavor to provide the world with a sufficient synopsis of what rights are by type, there being two.

Before we begin, we should once again consult the dictionary for the proper definition(s) of the word "right" as it would correctly apply in the context of freedom.

From Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of 1895, the relevant entry defines a right as:

Right,    n.  ...

2.  That to which one has a just claim

(a) That which one has a natural claim to exact

(b) That which one has a legal or social claim to do or to exact; a legal power; authority

(c) That which justly belongs to one; that which one has a claim to possess or own;
      the interest or share which anyone has in a piece of property; title; claim; interest; ownership

(d) Privilege of immunity granted by authority


And from Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1785:

Right. n. s.  ...

3.  Just claim

4.  That which justly belongs to one

5.  Property; interest

6.  Power; prerogative


From the definitions above, it is clear that a right is that to which one is entitled and to which he may validly claim ownership.  Also note the implicit references to property rights.  As it turns out, a right is centrally important to human freedom, for without respect for the rights of men, there can be no freedom, but only degrees of servitude, which I cover in "Degrees Of Freedom."

There are, however, two senses or types of rights.  The first and most important is that of the inherent or natural right.  An example of this would be a man's right to life - which is another way of saying his claim or title to life, further implying a man's life as being his property, what I call his "First Property", or "FP" for short.  Another would be a man's freedom.

These rights are those that are born into us as matters part and parcel of our human fabric.  There is, therefore, no possible manner by which one's rights may be separated from the rest of one's being as there is no line of demarcation between the two.  You and your rights are one and the same**.

The second sense of a right is that of those of a contractual nature.  An example of this would be your right to vote.  As a citizen of a given nation whose political structures includes the process of voting, there is most often an implied and assumed right to vote in elections.  It is the reason why a citizen of one nation may be prohibited from voting in a nation of which he is not a citizen.  Being contractual in nature, which is to say by way of agreement, this right may be stripped from you, which is the reason why a man convicted of a felony in America may have his right to vote removed.  Men are not born with the right to vote.  They are granted the contractual right as a matter of agreement that this is what men in good standing may do during elections.

All rights imply the right of exercise.  If I retain the right to keep and bear arms, it perforce follows that I hold the right to exercise.  This may seem redundant or even silly, yet it is an important philosophical point, as well as one of great practical importance.  Despite our inherent right to keep and bear arms, many governmental institutions and agencies nevertheless disparage and violate it by enacting statutes and adopting policies that serve that end, despite lip service to the core right itself.  It matters no whit that one acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms while preventing by some means the right of exercise, no matter how obliquely.  "Yes, you have the right to keep and bear arms.  No, you may not walk down the street with a gun on your hip."  The violations are often precisely that blatantly illogical, invalid, and felonious.

The right of exercise directly implies the right to acquire the means thereto as one's just abilities may allow.  What this means is that if I retain the right to keep and bear arms, implying my right of exercise and therefore the right to acquire the means of exercise, I rest centrally within the sphere of my just abilities to secure for myself those weapons I deem suitable for my purposes.  It does not mean, however, that I am entitled to be provided with a weapon or that I may steal one in order to secure my right to exercise.  It only guarantees my right to acquire such means as my abilities allow through non-criminal action.

By their very nature, inherent rights may be exercised for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all.  No man may oblige or force another to justify the other's exercise of his fundamental rights and the prerogatives that follow therefrom.  For example, a man decides to openly bear a weapon during a stroll downtown.  Police hold no rightful authority to so much as ask even the most seemingly innocuous question of him regarding his comport of arms, and yet they violate these basic rights of good men daily, often for no other reason than they feel that they can.

Contrary to popular misconception, and this is very important so please pay special attention**, all fundamental human rights are in fact absolute.  Lawmakers, judges, other government figures, and large proportions of most populations are quick to assert the gross falsehood that the inherent rights of men have limits.  They do not.  My right to keep and bear arms as a Freeman cannot be rightly limited, save in those cases where my rights come squarely in crossing with those of another whose prerogatives supersede my own under very narrowly defined conditions, an example of which shall be forthcoming.

Were such rights not absolute, they would not be fundamental, but rather contractual or otherwise arbitrary in nature, meaning somebody somewhere held the authority to bestow and rescind such rights.  Such a person would be your master and you, for all practical intents and purposes, his slave.

The fact that I may not murder someone with my weapon is not a restriction on my right to keep and bear arms per sé, but rather the simple denial of any right to murder my fellows.  The two propositions seem similar, and yet they are at wide variance with each other.  This is where my right to act ends and my neighbor's nose begins, as the old saying goes.

When I am traveling freely as a natural man upon the Commons, no other man may order me to disarm or otherwise molest me as regards my state of being armed, precisely because I retain the inherent right to keep and bear weaponry.  Therefore, my exercise may not be questioned, all else equal.

Another man does, however rest within his prerogatives to prohibit me from coming armed on to his privately held property, or that over which he wields valid private control.  For example, a shop owner may validly and lawfully prevent from entering his place of business those who are armed, even if he is not the  actual owner of the real estate in which the business is located.  Customers hold no inherent right to enter upon the private property of the shop.  The shop owner may set the conditions of entry, including a policy of no weapons.  If a customer finds the condition of entry unacceptable, he may choose not to enter.

Contractual rights are different in that they arise not as matters inherent of the fact that we live, but by conscious agreement or deign.  For example, Acme Anvil Co. hires a new blacksmith and part of their employment offer is stock options for ten thousand shares such that any time within his first five years of service with the firm he may buy shares at some pre-set price, say $1 per share.  That means that at any time during that period, the new hire holds the contractual right, or privilege, to purchase at $1/share as many shares as he wishes up to and including ten-thousands.  Beyond five years, he no longer retains that right, an example of how such rights may be limited by essentially arbitrary (though agreed) condition.

As we can see, this is not quite the same as an inherent right in that it is contrived-by and agreed-upon by men through free and voluntary accord.  In other words, it may not be absolute, save that it becomes so by such agreement.

The inherent right cannot be constrained in this way unilaterally, and while Freemen may waive certain of their fundamental rights, there is nothing in principal to suggest that they may not re-assert those rights at a later time.

Just because the fundamental rights of men are violated in gross and shamefully criminal fashion on a minute-by-minute basis by other men, most often those identifying themselves as "government" or "the state", it does not follow that those rights do not exist.  It only testifies to the violations themselves.  This is an area of reasoning where most people fail miserably in their analyses of such situations, falsely concluding that because rights are violated all the time, they therefore do not exist. Were this the case, then there would no such things as contracts because by this reasoning, if you and I enter into an agreement and I violate the terms, you have no recourse because rights, whether inherent or contractual, clearly do not exist as demonstrated by my violation.  This is wildly failed logic, if "logic" can even be said to live there at all.

Our natural rights are the unalienable property of Freemen and as such cannot be righteously curbed, diminished, removed, violated, or otherwise disparaged save where a Freeman becomes a proven Criminal, in which case some of his rights may be curtailed for a limited period coinciding with the term of any sentence he may have earned as the result of his unrighteous acts.  Short of that, no man holds the least authority to diminish another through acting as if to be the other's master.  This is a felony of the highest order, regardless of who is committing it, or their purport to authority, for such claims are damned lies and may be validly met with extreme prejudice and non-equivocation.

It is my hope and desire to disseminate this information to as wide a population as is possible.  The lack of proper understanding by so many regarding their birthright is both frightening and appalling in the level of danger it threatens to all men.  If you do yourself no other honor in life, at least do that of learning in deeper stance that which no other man may take from you.  Your rights are your first property.  Treasure them and honor them properly, for to neglect this is to invite calamity upon yourself.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.


** It behooves one to read these sentences however many millions of times needed to make their messages soak in fully.  Tattoo it onto the insides of your eyelids if you must, but never forget them and endeavor with all good faith and diligence to understand them wholly and with great precision and clarity, for it will benefit you and those around you endlessly.

The Freeman and the Weakman

There are two kinds of people in the world.

The first is what I call the "Weakman" and is as common as dirt.  The second is the "Freeman", who is rare as hen's teeth and as precious as life itself.

The Weakman could be epitomized by the so-called "progressive", which in point of practical semantic fact is represented by individuals of a decidedly regressive mindset who cling to wholly corrupted, self-contradicting, and thereby nonsensical notions of words such as "equality" and "justice".

The Weakman is a paradoxical creature.

For example, he is in many ways a fine and empathetic individual with a good and generous heart, while on the other hand he is petty, ill-bred and ill-mannered, vicious beyond fault, unreasoning, and driven by brute and primitive id-emotion to act in the most atrocious ways when the demented fantasies to which he has welded himself come under the least perceived opposition.  He believes that the use of physical force to compel the compliance of those not on board with his ideals is just and always warranted, yet hypocritically rails against any such force applied against his own behaviors, regardless of how atrociously he may act.  Where the realization of these ideals are concerned, for the Weakman there is no tack or measure that is beyond propriety.  The Weakman will gleefully see you and your children murdered for the sake of establishing upon the earth his deranged ideals of social "justice".

Furthermore, the Weakman is marked by an aversion to responsibility akin to that of vampires to crosses, holy water, and mirrors.

In short, Weakmen are essentially infants in grown human bodies.  They are of ego so fragile as to make an adult cringe in empathic agony.  The typical and so-called "millennial" is a penultimate example of the Weakman.  On the one hand there stands this aforementioned glass-like fragility and brittleness.  On the other, we find the wild viciousness that becomes manifest in such copious abundance once the Weakman's delicate sensibilities have been feather-bumped, as to amaze even the most jaded adult.  He flies into rages of such all-consuming performance that I daresay most are deserving of an Academy Award such that an intact, rational, and nominally healthy adult is left utterly dumbfounded and in slack-jawed incredulity upon bearing witness to such senseless displays.

Add to all this the rise of the new vocabulary to assist the Weakman in his efforts to force his dangerous tyrannies upon the world.  Over the past several years I have become familiarized with the perilously childish and unhealthy "social justice" terms that include but are not limited to "trigger", "micro-aggression", "safe space",  "cultural appropriation", "equality", and "justice", etc.  The diabolical feats of mental midgetry that lead to the rise of such terms and their definitions are worthy of pause.

The Weakman is a nearly perfect stooge for the Tyrant, the proverbial "useful idiot"of Soviet Russian fame, at least in terms of his blind devotion to whatever plate of nonsense is served up for his consumption.  So long as he is provided with the right lies by the "government" to which he is pathologically devoted, The Weakman will do nearly anything asked of him, so long as responsibility and construction are not parts of the deal, for another characteristic of the Weakman is a love of destruction and an aversion to responsibility that well approximates the mathematical notion of infinity.  Weakmen populate the ranks of our contemporary equivalents of those useful idiots.

Weakmen kneel and praise at the altar of the "state", for government is the only apparent source of their sense of purpose and self-worth.  Their entire concept of self appears to be deeply tied to the notion of government, particularly where de-facto collectivism provides their aversive selves an escape from individual responsibility.  Despite this, Weakmen will spontaneously fly into fits of hypocritical rage and violence against the very government before which they kneel when that institution fails them in some perceived way, real or more likely imagined.

Yet, despite all these terribly unflattering characteristics, the Weakman's basic instinct appears to be that of generosity; at least so long as:

• he is being generous with someone else's assets;
• the giving is easy;
• he's already gotten "his".

There is more one could write about the Weakman, but there is really no point in going on too much further, suffice to say that he manifests all the worst attributes of the human animal - fear, avarice, ignorance, and lassitude, the proverbial Four Necessities.  I will nonetheless contrast him with his opposing counterpart.

Behold the Freeman.  He is courageous - enough to accept the sometimes dire risks and terrifying realities that are part and parcel with freedom in specific, and the world in general.  The Freeman claims all benefits of being free, but is also accepting of the costs, which he pays gladly in exchange for that which freedom brings, the proverbial animating contest, as well as all its benefits and risks.

The Freeman acknowledges reality as it stands, yet maintains his ideals as targets after which to shoot without any expectation of striking with perfection.  Unlike the Weakman, the Freeman shows the proper respect for the rights of his fellows, having learned what those rights are and why they are important.

The Freeman is an adult, rather than an infant throwing a hissy-fit through the agency of a grown body, or worse yet - government stooges.  He neither shirks nor shrinks from his responsibilities as a Freeman toward himself or his fellows, no matter how it may inconvenience or otherwise pain or aggrieve his convenience and patience.

The Freeman is the master of his emotions, using his reason in place of brute feelings, whereas the Weakman is the willing and dutiful slave to emotional caprice.

The Freeman is courageous, facing his fears and the dangers of this world with intelligence and discretion.  The Weakman is a dyed-in-the-wool coward with little to no personal grace to which one might bear witness.

The Freeman is generous, even when generosity has become difficult, and often precisely because it has become so.  The Weakman is generous only when it suits his mood, and usually only with the assets of others, ill-gotten.  He will rarely if ever give to others, particularly if his own coffers are not overflowing with rude excess.  This is why the Weakman tends to be a big fan of, and advocate for progressivism, proclaiming his subscription with abundant noises and chest pounding.  He is all on board for any political philosophy where he feels he can hide from responsibility and labor, and do whatever it is to which his unrestrained emotions may lead.

The Freeman endeavors with humility to improve his state of ignorance.  The Weakman revels in his ignorance, praising it explicitly as such, or relabeling it as "knowledge" and "wisdom" in his attempts to fool himself into feeling he is better than the rest.  He is a weak and unrestrained ego, blown up like a balloon, endlessly professing his innate superiority over those who do not agree with him.  Most of all, the Weakman hates with bitter venom the Freeman, for the latter always serves to remind the Weakman of his terrible and pitiable shortcomings and inadequacies.

The Freeman is industrious pursuant to the goals he sets for himself.  The Weakman expects others to hand him that which he capriciously demands.  There are endless examples of such debauched attitudes, including but not limited to the demand that "government" provide every man, woman, and child with a guaranteed minimum income for life.

The Freeman is worthy of one's trust.  The Weakman cannot be trusted to the door, save that he will betray you at his first convenience and experience no sense of having done anything wrong, particularly where his visions of the "greater good" are concerned.

The Freeman is quietly tolerant of that with which finds himself in disagreement.  The Weakman noisily spouts off about his tolerance while wishing misery, prison, and even disease and death upon all with whom he disagrees.  I have seen and heard such people literally wish others to be stricken with cancer for no other reason than they had the temerity to disagree on a matter of pure opinion and personal preference.

The Freeman tends by his nature to comport himself with a certain humility in the knowledge of his shortcomings.  The Weakman, being of a collapsing-ego, never shuts his mouth such that the world is painted in his mind as revolving around him and his precious and all-consuming "feelings".

The Freeman is thereby open-minded about everything, tolerant of much, and accepting of some.  The Freeman allows others to hold to their values, opinions, and practices.  The Weakman's tightly shut mind is peddled to the world as open to all, yet his pompously professed tolerance is belied by his open and spewing hatred of all that which does not mesh with his world-view.

The Freeman retains the courage, responsibility, and moral fiber to judge for himself the merits of the manifold things he encounters in life.  The Weakman shuns all courage and responsibility, all the while denying the existence of morals such that he abjures and forswears all proper judgment for his opinions and actions in his pathological need to avoid accountability at any cost to himself and those around him.

The Freeman accepts responsibility for what he feels, says, and does.  The Weakman denies any such responsibility, especially for his feelings.  He discounts language and thereby the responsibility for his utterances.  He accepts responsibility for his actions only to the very narrow degree that the circumstances in question mesh with his world-view.  For example, he may apologize in the wake of calling a black man "nigger", but only if such utterances are claimed as repugnant to him.  In the same breath he will almost always attempt to excuse himself or mitigate his culpability by citing how his "feelings" got the better of him, or some similar nonsense.  By that means will he apologize, but only with the subtext that he's not really responsible.  The Weakman's greatest device for evading responsibility is victimhood.  Ever the victim, whether of his emotions, the words of others, or any of a vast set of "outside" influences, he is never really responsible for what he says, thinks, or does.

In short, the Freeman defines the Realman.  The Weakman defines a flailing, lost, helpless infant of ill-breeding and great distemper who, despite his lack of skills of true and lasting value, nevertheless represents a clear and present threat to himself and all others, for he has neither the cloth nor discipline or decency to live by the tenets of that which he so vociferously boasts as being sacred to him.  Most notable among these self-professed virtues are those of love, kindness, respect, generosity, tolerance, learnedness, non-violence, and open-mindedness, all of which the Freeman carries with him without the self-serving pomp and idiocy of the Weakman.

The Weakman is the perfect hypocrite and the most hollow of all creatures imaginable.

So tell me, which would you consider yourself?

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

The Second Amendment

Much effort of argumentation has been expended by countless souls regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment (2A) to the Constitution of the United States of America.  Virtually all of the debate to which I have devoted my attentions focuses upon the precise semantics of the Amendment.  While the meaning of the 2A is in point of fact crystalline in its clarity, those of an ignorant bent regarding English grammar or of a less than honest agenda claim otherwise, giving all manner of ridiculous misinterpretations. It is not my objective here to address the 2A on that basis as it has all been said and done before, the truth being what it is, as well as the same for the lies and misinformation. My goal here is to address the 2A from the standpoint of reason in the form of a logical proof demonstrating the Amendment's actual nature, thereby setting to final rest the controversy by revealing through a different channel the proper meaning of it. Let us begin by quoting the Amendment, that we may have at hand that which was committed to paper: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Allow me to begin by clarifying a point of error held closely by a vast plurality of people regarding the precise function of the 2A, wherein they mistakenly believe that it gives people the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment gives nothing in terms of the right in question.  This is one of the most profoundly flawed, yet common beliefs about it: that it grants men the right to keep and bear arms, which would imply that the right is contractual in nature, which is to say a humanly-contrived artifact rather than a fundamental component of each man's claim to life.  Nothing could be further from the truth. The 2A does nothing more or less than recognize the preexistant natural and inherent right of a man to keep and bear arms for all morally just reasons, and guarantee each man protection from violation, dimishment, disparagement, alteration, or other derogation of that most basic of claims. It is every man's right to defend life, limb, and other property from harm and destruction.  This is a postulative assertion, the nature of which is self-evident such that no further proof is required, even though such is indeed available and readily demonstrated with relative ease by any man of normal intelligence and the will to seek it. A right, which is a claim, directly and perforce implies the right and the authority to exercise.  This in turn inexorably implies the right to the means of exercise. A basic right does not effectively (practically) exist in point of material fact where the concomitant right (ability) to exercise is denied.  The right to exercise may itself become materially nonexistent without the means of protecting it, as in the case of the tyrant's suppression of such means, thereby leaving him free to suppress exercise.  This in turn effectively and materially extinguishes practical evidence of the endemic right, rendering it for all practical purposes nonexistent. In other words, a theoretical right no matter how evidently extant, obviously proper, and just in the vapors of the mind, has no effective meaning in the real world without the ability of the claimant to exercise it. Therefore, if a man does in fact hold the moral right to defend life, limb, and other property, it follows axiomatically that he holds the materially effective right to exercise his prerogatives pursuant to the claim.  Successively, it must therefore hold that if I am to exercise the right to defend life and limb, I must be free to acquire the instruments of exercise, such as they may be, in accord with my morally just means of doing so. In point of practical example, if a firearm is for sale for five dollars and I happen to have that sum in my possession of which I am free to spend as I choose, I am therefore at my liberty to purchase the weapon without interference from any third parties.  To further clarify, the right in question does not imply that I am entitled to have a firearm provided to me by some third-party provisioner at the expense of others, particularly those who make such provisions only under threats of violence and other coercions. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is in fact the explicit guarantee to each man that he shall remain sacrosanct and unimpeded in his acquisition, carriage, and employment of the means of exercising his right to defend life, limb, and other property. Because of its obvious relationship to the postulate that states that all men hold the right to defend life, limb, and other property against from damage, destruction, and theft, it is apodictically evident that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America protects the right of each man to keep and bear from violation, diminution, reprobation, alteration, or other insult whatsoever. You, as a natural born man whose claim to life itself is equal to that of all other men, taken singly or severally.  That claim, being equal, it follows that no man may make a claim upon your life, whether in whole in it its minutiae, without your consent.  That being the case, pursuant to your right to life and all its trappings and implications, you are thereby entitled to defend that claim from theft and destruction, which finally brings you to rest at the right to the means of defense, which is what the 2A is all about. This is all the proof one should ever need to convince an opponent who is honest, of integrity, and of nominal intelligence capable of grasping the chain of reason. Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Minarchy May Be The Only Viable Practical Path To Freedom

The prospects for proper human freedom appear to be waning in this age of brazen usurpation and other governmental corruption.  It is everywhere one turns, no matter what the nation.

There are those of us who recognize that the proper freedom of a man means he may act as he pleases, so long as he does not violate the rights of his fellows.  This is the very definition of autodiathism, which is equivalent to anarchy, minus the negative connotations.

In a closer-to-ideal world, humanity would return to its roots of autodiatistic governance, where each man governed himself, respected the rights of others to do the same, and generally minded his own business.

We do not, however, live in that world.  Today's world is rife with one man's disrespect for his fellows.  It is full of morbid greed, bitter envy, destructive levels of hatred, and the nearly bottomless ignorance that leads him to believe that these conditions are inherently part and parcel with life as a human being and cannot be avoided.  He therefore comes to the belief that he must learn to optimally take advantage of these inescapable features of human relations such that he "wins" this undefined game of desire running amok, no matter who gets hurt.  The only real rule in that game is: don't get caught at anything for which you may be held accountable.  Today, that risk shrinks almost by the minute, particularly for those brazen enough to act boldly in pursuit of their self-interest at the expense of their fellows.

The chances of a land such as America returning to a societal and cultural structure of governance that is fully autodiathistic is just this side of zero.  The chances that "the state" will disappear through a return of humanity to its senses are not at all good, so far as I can see.  This is largely due to the deeply ingrained set of basic assumptions under which virtually all men labor such that in their minds they cannot so much as conceive of a world where no state exists, much less that it could function in any manner other than utter, terminal chaos.

Let us remind ourselves that mind is everything; your thoughts form your reality.  Therefore, if your basic assumptions preclude the possibility of pure self-determination for each member of a given society of men, it then becomes impossible such that your mind becomes incapable of conceiving it as plausible.  The imagination becomes limited in that direction and one becomes incapable of fabricating the mental potential for such a thing.  The mind, being unable to go there, withdraws and rejects the notion out of hand and the status quo is thereby preserved.  This is the way in which people are kept as prisoners in a dark-age; mostly by their own hands directly after accepting the limiting assumptions fed them by third parties.

And so it is for the vast and overwhelming majority of humanity who, having taken in that particular assumption that the world would fall to ruin in the absence of "the state", they become strongly incapable and unwilling to so much as consider the possibility of self-governance.  There is a whole litany of associated boogeymen that frighten or otherwise fail to appeal to such people such they many become irate and even prone to emotional violence in their rejection of the notion.  Just one example: responsibility.  True freedom requires of men they be fully responsible and accountable for every act; what they say, what they do, how they think and feel.  In a world where men have been heavily trained away from being responsible, this idea rests bitterly upon their tongues, however subconsciously, and therefore leaves them shaking their heads at it and walking away as quickly as their mental legs will carry them from it.

Thus far, we have examined a primary reason why proper human freedom may never again see the light of day.  But what if some significant subpopulation of the world's humanity were swayed?  What if, for example, the people of America could be somehow convinced that autodiathism is in fact the light and the only way forward that does not involve compulsory servitude, poverty, and misery for the average man?  What would then happen?

Would America suddenly become this island of bright and shining liberty in the midst of the vast oceans of global oppression and despair; a safe harbor for those yearning for the levity and invigoration of blessèd liberty?

No.

Why, you ask?  Precisely because of the remaining plague of global brutality running rampant across the world.  The despot seeks, at the very least, to retain the grips he holds on power at any given moment, never to give up the least epsilon of it.  In practical reality, the tyrant's deeper wish is to grow that power by whatever means he may find fitting.  The tyrant tends strongly to see power as a zero-sum, meaning that if he wants more, he must steal it from someone else.

Returning the the initial point of preserving what he has, the despotic leader can in no possible way tolerate the existence of anything "better" than that which he offers his own serfs.  This is because that which people deem as "better" and is beheld as possible for others becomes desired for themselves.  This desire naturally pits the wishes of the common man against those of the autocrat, and he who wields the power simply cannot tolerate such competition of desires and expect to retain his power.  This is why societies such as the Soviet Union blacked out the truth regarding the western world, for it would only lead to desires that conflicted with those of the Supreme Soviet.  China and North Korea remain as such to their respective degrees by state limitation of internet access, for example.

The tyrants of the world would flirt with political and possibly physical suicide, were they to tolerate the existence of even a single nation where people were self-governing and free to go about their business so long as they did not bring harm to others.  This is an outrage and affront to all who seek to dominate their fellows, and as such it must be eliminated.  No free land is safe in the company of external tyranny.

Add to that the mere fact that such a land would stand only to become highly enriched such that it would come to represent a golden egg so large and appealing that leaders of the other nations would find it impossible to resist the attempt to take it.  The long and miserable path of our history attests to this worst of all human habits.

Therein lies the two central reasons why a purely free land would likely fall to the predations of its neighbors.  Such a land would, at least for some period, lack the organization of its despotic global neighbors.  In so lacking, it would stand militarily vulnerable to material encroachment, looting, and eventual reabsorption into the cancerous fold of authoritarianism.

This is absolutely key as to understanding why pure autodiathism cannot simply pop up in a technologically advanced world and expect to survive the longer haul, no matter how enlightened the local population may have become.  Everything autodiathism implies, which includes a society based on 100% agorism, would stand vulnerable to more centrally-organized and presumably predatory nations - at least for a while.

For some period, what we may call that of "adjustment", an anarchic land whose political culture was based on naught but contract, would remain less materially powerful than those lands it philosophically, morally, and functionally left in the dust.  The people would have to learn how to apply voluntary engagement to functions such as that of national defense, which is the SINGLE consideration where centralization, properly carried forth and executed, leads to a superior capability.

It is a sad truth of this world, which is rapidly flinging itself back into a dark-age, that where militarism is concerned, all nations wishing to survive as such must do one of two things: shrink away and toe the lines of globalist tyranny in the hope of remaining uninteresting to those more materially powerful than themselves, or become sufficiently strong to discourage predation by one's neighbors.  Neither option is particularly appealing, the former leading to a dreary gray existence of constant dread, devoid of all joy; the latter being materially wasteful to a degree that nauseates and appalls all decent men, for war is the ultimate obscenity of waste and stupidity.

This then, leads us to what I believe may be the only practical path to freedom that holds in its hand longer-term survivability: Minarchy, which is roughly defined as:

"...a libertarian political philosophy which advocates for a particular variety of minimal state that acts only to enforce a universal framework of natural and legal rights essential to the functioning of a free marketplace in economy and culture, and operating through a limited government."

There is more to the definition as per wikipedia (yes, I know) but those elements are extraneous and to my eyes at least partly disagreeable.  Suffice for our purposes here that this is a reasonable working definition.

The one advantage of a proper minarchist state would be the organization and broad management of the military function.  Without a sufficient military capability, the free and agorist land would remain deeply vulnerable to the designs of conquest its less-than-free neighbors would doubtlessly contrive in their envy, lust, and fear.

I must, however, be clear that it is at least possible that such a state need not remain in perpetuity.  I do believe, however unlikely seeming at this time, that the potential exists for humans to evolve beyond their desires for conquest.  Given sufficient training and habituation to the grand virtues of proper freedom, and coupled with the continuing material advances of our technologies, it seems clear that predation by one group of men upon another might become a wholly unappealing notion.  Given that a vast number would presumably be sufficiently trained to the arts of self-defense, well armed with said technologically advanced weaponry, and all in the context where far more profitable endeavors were freely available to one and all for nothing more than the cost of having a dream and being willing to pursue it, notions of conquest would lose their shine.  Such a situation would constitute the ultimate carrot and stick arrangement: be cool and prosper beyond your wildest dreams on the one hand, or be a schmuck and likely die or be horribly maimed, on the other.

And let us not judge this possibility for plausibility based on the current level of average human perception and applied intelligence.  It is clear that such a land could only come to exist where the people have gotten their proper clues, accepted them, and aligned their daily practices and life philosophies with them.  As has been quipped before: freedom and stupidity are mutually and violently incompatible.

In summary, I contend that the path to real freedom is long, slowly trodden, and always fraught with risk such that a population cannot jump instantly from tyranny to freedom from one minute to the next.  Those surrounding you will not tolerate it due to fear, envy, and hatred.  Therefore, the slow ramping upward from the depths of despotism and servitude must be the reality such that the transfer of material power is gradually made from the hands of the few to those of the many, as all parties are learning how to do what is needed without falling prey to the evils that surround them in other lands and even in one's own, for we cannot safely assume that consensus would be universal.

This slow ramp-up implies the medial goal of a minarchist state.  Some purists may chafe, but ask yourself this: what would you prefer today, right now - a minarchy where your rights were actually respected but where some central authority remained, or what we currently enjoy?

I see minarchy as an essential step toward better times for our posterity, with the ultimate goal being that of complete and proper freedom such that one day men will be able to pursue life truly on their own terms in accord with the principles of proper human relations.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.